UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-7071
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
FRANCISCO BARAHONA, a/k/a Poncho,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 17-7099
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
FRANCISCO BARAHONA, a/k/a Poncho,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. (8:12-cr-00014-RWT-3; 8:15-cv-03658-RWT)
Submitted: December 19, 2017 Decided: January 3, 2018
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Francisco Barahona, Appellant Pro Se. Arun G. Rao, Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Francisco Barahona seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying him a certificate of appealability.
The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not
issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner
satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district
court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When
the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both
that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable
claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Barahona has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeals. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3